In The News

[ShadowPred]

Well that's just wrong.

I don't see why calling "radical christians" or "christianists", simply as Christians, is wrong.

I personally don't think it's unfair to say that they fall under the same label. I have never seen any single "true believer" do anything that wasn't the opposite of what Christ taught. Whether they are extreme, or very slight acts of doing the opposite things that he taught, they still fall under the same label to me. Sure you can call them "radical christians" and all that, but I'm just saying, to me, they still fall under the same category regardless of what they do.

I have met plenty of people who are perfectly fine, nice and tolerant people who respect my way of life. I have a hard time believing that I'm the only one around here who has experienced lots of religious people who aren't intolerant and ignorant crazies.

Oh, no I get that. My point is that I don't see why I can't just call the radical Christians simply as Christians.

[The PredBen]

Well that's just wrong.

I don't see why calling "radical christians" or "christianists", simply as Christians, is wrong.

I personally don't think it's unfair to say that they fall under the same label. I have never seen any single "true believer" do anything that wasn't the opposite of what Christ taught. Whether they are extreme, or very slight acts of doing the opposite things that he taught, they still fall under the same label to me. Sure you can call them "radical christians" and all that, but I'm just saying, to me, they still fall under the same category regardless of what they do.

I have met plenty of people who are perfectly fine, nice and tolerant people who respect my way of life. I have a hard time believing that I'm the only one around here who has experienced lots of religious people who aren't intolerant and ignorant crazies.

Oh, no I get that. My point is that I don't see why I can't just call the radical Christians simply as Christians.

Generally radical religous people are often called "fundamentalists" regardless of whether or not what they preach/do is "fundamental" to their faith.

[ShadowPred]

And if they're a fundamentalist Christian, I can still call them Christian. Which is what I've been trying to say.

[Crazy Rich]

I think the point here is that an individual can be capable of bad stuff and happen to be Christian, but does that make all Christians bad? No, just the individual who committed the act, but he was Christian regardless. Just like I'm Canadian. But the media and the ignorant will inevitably focus on facts like he/she being a Christian, a bad one but still a Christian, but again that doesn't make them all bad, just the individual who happens to have a Christian background.

[ShadowPred]

I think the point here is that an individual can be capable of bad stuff and happen to be Christian, but does that make all Christians bad? No, just the individual who committed the act, but he was Christian regardless. Just like I'm Canadian. But the media and the ignorant will inevitably focus on facts like he/she being a Christian, a bad one but still a Christian, but again that doesn't make them all bad, just the individual who happens to have a Christian background.

You pretty much got my point. Another example that I would say, would be something very basic like, Video Games and Board Games, they both fall under the Category of Games to me.

[Crazy Rich]

I think the point here is that an individual can be capable of bad stuff and happen to be Christian, but does that make all Christians bad? No, just the individual who committed the act, but he was Christian regardless. Just like I'm Canadian. But the media and the ignorant will inevitably focus on facts like he/she being a Christian, a bad one but still a Christian, but again that doesn't make them all bad, just the individual who happens to have a Christian background.

You pretty much got my point. Another example that I would say, would be something very basic like, Video Games and Board Games, they both fall under the Category of Games to me.

That works too.

[Bat Chain Puller]

Apparently this is how the whole Boston Bombing Saga ends ...

[ShadowPred]

Apparently this is how the whole Boston Bombing Saga ends ...

Oh, no...lol.


EDIT


http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/19/us/boston-area-violence/index.html

'CAPTURED!!!' Boston police announce Marathon bombing suspect in custody

[SpreadEagleBeagle]

I think the point here is that an individual can be capable of bad stuff and happen to be Christian, but does that make all Christians bad? No, just the individual who committed the act, but he was Christian regardless. Just like I'm Canadian. But the media and the ignorant will inevitably focus on facts like he/she being a Christian, a bad one but still a Christian, but again that doesn't make them all bad, just the individual who happens to have a Christian background.

Which was the point I was trying to get to. And since the media kind of rules what is being said I find it important to cut off their legs so to speak by taking away the sensationalist edge of theirs, which is to fire people up and make them addicted to the news. It's more volatile if you insinuate that Muslims and Islam (or Christians and Christianity...) are the problem because you know people will react in all sorts of ways because of that. By making a distinction between everyday people and fundamentalists we also make it harder for both Islamists and Islamophobes to attract new recruits.

But sure, in the end a Christian/Muslim/Jewish Fundamentalist is just as much a Christian/Muslim/Jew as any regular everyday joe Christian/Muslim/Jew, since they both follow the same scriptures and some core beliefs. They both also call themselves and see themselves as Christian/Muslim/Jewish despite what other people of their own religion think and say.

In other words the problem here has, just like you said, more to do with ignorant people who abuses and missuses the word Christian/Muslim/Jew to further their twisted cause or to make a buck.

[DoomRulz]

I don't mean to be pedantic, but the use of "Islamist" and "Islamism" really pisses me off. Where the hell did those terms even come from? Is this some way of distinguishing between a Muslim that isn't a terrorist and one that is? For God's sake, they're Muslims, plain and simple.

I think it makes a huge difference.

A person may be Muslim or Christian (or whatever), but when this person turns his/her religion into a more or less hostile and intolerant political ideology, and furthermore forces it on others in large in one enforcing way or another, you're no longer just an innocent practitioner of that religion - you have turned your view and stance on that religion into a political agenda.

That's why I think it's important to make a distinction between Muslims and Islamists, Jews and Zionists, Christians and Christianists (more known as the Christian Right, Theonomists, Dominionists, Evangelical Fundementalists etc.).

I suppose but it sounds like those words simply create new ways of discriminating against whichever religious group is in question. These "Islamists" are still Muslims, like it or not. It's an easy way to label everyone in the group as being crazy.

[SM]

Islamist is simply a term to describe extremist Muslims.

I don't see why calling "radical christians" or "christianists", simply as Christians, is wrong.

Only if tarring all Christians as radicals is okay by you.

[ShadowPred]

Islamist is simply a term to describe extremist Muslims.

I don't see why calling "radical christians" or "christianists", simply as Christians, is wrong.

Only if tarring all Christians as radicals is okay by you.

It's not, and that's not at all what I was saying.

[maledoro]

The way I see it, if you are doing what your scriptures tell you to do, you are a ___ian/___ist, plain and simple. If you honestly believe that your deity exists and you love and obey them, you will do their bidding no questions asked. If you feel that there is something questionable in their instructions you're probably not taking that deity seriously and if you're not convinced that you will be punished for disobeying them you might want to question your beliefs. One idea you might explore is that you might not be doing their will but yours instead.

The fact that the Bible and other texts were rewritten and there are many sects in every religion should raise a red flag to someone that they might not be following the Right Path of their deity but be following the path of some earthly leader. They can't be all right and there isn't any evidence one is more legitimate than the other, unless you accept what doesn't conflict with your own beliefs and desires. That being the case, you are not a follower of your deity, you are just catering to your own whims.

[DoomRulz]

Islamist is simply a term to describe extremist Muslims.

So why not call them the latter only?

[KirklandSignature]

So what can the US government do to prevent future bomb/terrorist attacks? I dont want no wise ass answers such as banning pressure cookers or ball bearings. Is everyone else OK with giving up certain rights in order to feel more safer or secure in the United States? Personally, I don't care anymore, I just want to feel safe in the major cities. Is a ban on Muslim immigration logical?